DETAILED ACTION
Applicant submitted remarks in response to the latest Office action on 22 June 2026. Therein, Applicant amended claims 1, 7, 9 and 11-15. Applicant did not cancel or add new claims. The submitted claims have been entered and are considered below.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserted that Ohashi fails to distinguish between different automatic control behaviors depending on the state of a group travel mode. Additionally, Applicant asserted that the Grelaud Application does not disclose any automatic stop or crawl control at all, let alone first and second automatic control operations having different vehicle behaviors.
These arguments present the references individually. Applicant fails to consider the prior art combination as a whole. In response to this, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The teaching from Ohashi discloses controlling speed and positional relationship of the own vehicle to the surrounding vehicles based on the environmental circumstances. Ohashi does not teach controlling speed and distance based on the activation state of a group travel mode. This is taught by the Grelaud Application. It is the combination that teaches changing automatic stop or crawl behavior based on operating context (e.g., group travel mode enabled or not enabled).
Applicant’s lone assertion regarding the combination of references argued that stated rationale for combining Ohashi and the Grelaud Application is unrelated to the subject matter of the claimed invention. Contrary to Applicant’s assertion, the statement does not need to be an exact recitation of applicant’s claimed invention. A prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. And given that the rationale/motivation statement was taken directly from the text of the combining reference, It is an explicit and reasoned analysis within the same technology field and reasonably related to the particular problem presented by the claimed invention. The stated rationale is proper.
Applicant further asserted that the rejection relies on improper hindsight reasoning. In response, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Examiner did not consult applicant’s own specification for motivation to combine. The hindsight is not improper.
Lastly, Examiner wishes to point out that while the claimed first and second automatic controls are recited to be separate, the two elements are interpreted to be a repeated control scheme that are differentiated by the state of the group mode. Both automatic controls are recited to automatically stop or craw based on the presence of a necessity. Interpreting the two control modes to be separate and distinct requires elements that are different between the two control modes. Asserting that they are different without a claimed difference fails to be persuasive.
The rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohashi, et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0144665) in view of Grelaud, et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0135033, referred to as “The Grelaud application”).
For claim 1, Ohashi teaches a controller (20) for a rider-assistance system (1), the controller (20) configured to: acquire surrounding environment information of an own vehicle (100) during travel of the own vehicle (100) (see Fig. 1, #4, paras. 0085, 0087); and execute speed control operation of the own vehicle (100) based on the surrounding environment information acquired by the controller (20) (see paras. 0085, 0087), and further comprising: determine a presence or absence of necessity to stop the own vehicle (100) or make the own vehicle (100) crawl during the travel of the own vehicle (100) (see paras. 0026, 0103, 0104), wherein the controller executes first speed control operation as the speed control operation to adjust a positional relationship between the own vehicle (100) and another vehicle (200) traveling around the own vehicle (100) (see paras. 0132-0133, Fig. 19). Ohashi does not explicitly disclose the rest of the limitation. A teaching from the Grelaud publication discloses a disabled state of a group travel mode as a mode in which plural motorcycles (300) including the own vehicle (100) travel in a group (see para. 0020). It would have been obvious at the effective date of filing to modify Ohashi to include the teaching of the Grelaud publication based on a reasonable expectation of success and the motivation to improve how it is ascertained if the two-wheeled motor vehicle is on a group ride with at least one other two-wheeled motor vehicle, and in the event of a group ride, the speed-control or proximity-control system is switched to a special operating mode (see para. 0002).
Continuing with the claim, Ohashi further teaches executes first automatic control operation as control operation to cause the own vehicle (100) to automatically stop or to automatically become the crawl in the case where the controller determines the presence of the necessity during execution of the first speed control operation (see para. 0099), executes second speed control operation as the speed control operation to adjust the positional relationship between the own vehicle (100) and the motorcycle (300), which is other than the own vehicle (100), of the plural motorcycles (300) traveling in the group (see paras. 0085, 0087). The Grelaud publication further teaches to control speed in an enabled state of the group travel mode (see paras. 0012, 0021). Ohashi further teaches executes second automatic control operation as the control operation to cause the own vehicle (100) to automatically stop or to automatically become the crawl in the case where the controller (20) determines the presence of the necessity during execution of the second speed control operation (see paras. 0026, 0103, 0099), and changes behavior of the own vehicle (100) between the first automatic control operation and the second automatic control operation (see para. 0009).
With reference to claim 9, Ohashi further teaches wherein the controller (20) adjusts the positional relationship based the surrounding environment information of a first range in surroundings of the own vehicle (100) in the second speed control operation (see paras. 0009-0012), which is executed when the controller (20) determines the absence of the necessity, and adjusts the positional relationship between the own vehicle (100) and the other motorcycle (300) based on the surrounding environment information of a second range (see paras. 0009-0012), which differs from the first range, in the surroundings of the own vehicle (100) in the second automatic control operation (see paras. 0009-0012, 0014).
Referring to claim 10, Ohashi further discloses wherein the controller (20) changes an allowable value of a speed change state amount, which is generated to the own vehicle (100) (see paras. 0092, 0014), between the second automatic control operation and each or one of the first automatic control operation and the second speed control operation (see paras. 0092, 0014), which is executed when the controller determines the absence of the necessity (see para. 0092).
Regarding claim 11, Ohashi further discloses wherein the controller (20) determines the presence or the absence of the necessity based on output of a vehicle behavior sensor (12) that is mounted to the own vehicle (100) (see para. 0085).
Pertaining to claim 12, Ohashi further teaches determines the presence or the absence of the necessity based on output of a surrounding environment sensor (11) that is mounted to the own vehicle (100) (see para. 0085).
For claim 13, Ohashi does not explicitly disclose the claimed limitation. However, vehicle-to-vehicle communication (V2V) is considered well known to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ohashi to include the claimed limitation based on a reasonable expectation of success and the motivation to improve how to warn the driver when the forward intervehicular distance becomes smaller than a predetermined value relative to the preceding vehicle having a side intervehicular distance smaller than a predetermined value (see para. 0015).
With reference to claim 14, Ohashi further teaches the controller (20) determines the presence or the absence of the necessity based on map information (see para. 0091).
Claim 15 is interpreted to contain substantially similar subject matter and elements as those defined in claim 1. Accordingly, claim 15 is rejected based on the citations and reasoning applied above for claim 1.
Claims 2-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohashi, et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0144665) and Grelaud, et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0135033, referred to as “The Grelaud application”), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Grelaud, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 12,151,708), referred to as “The Grelaud patent”).
With reference to claim 2, Ohashi does not explicitly disclose the claimed limitations. A teaching from the Grelaud patent discloses wherein in the second automatic control operation, the controller 20 adjusts the positional relationship between the own vehicle (100) and the other motorcycle (300) that travels ahead of the own vehicle (100) (see col. 1:42-53). It would have been obvious at the effective date of filing to modify Ohashi to include the teaching of the Grelaud patent based on a reasonable expectation of success and the motivation to improve the event that the lateral offset of the second single-track motor vehicle exceeds a predefined second threshold value and the lateral offset of the third single-track motor vehicle falls below a predefined third threshold value, the third single-track motor vehicle is selected as the target object (see col. 1:60-67).
For claim 3, Ohashi further discloses wherein in the controller adjusts a positional relationship between the own vehicle (100) and the another vehicle (200) traveling ahead of the own vehicle (100) in the first automatic control operation (see para. 0099). The Grelaud publication teaches makes the positional relationship between the own vehicle (100) and the other motorcycle (300) in an advancing direction, which is adjusted in the second automatic control operation, have an approaching tendency (see paras. 0012, 0021). Ohashi further teaches when compared to the positional relationship between the own vehicle (100) and the another vehicle (200) in the advancing direction, which is adjusted in the first automatic control operation (see paras. 0114, 0099).
Pertaining to claim 4, Ohashi further teaches wherein in the controller changes the other motorcycle (300) as a target vehicle for adjustment of the positional relationship between the second speed control operation (see paras. 0009-0012, 0014), which is executed when the controller (20) determines the absence of the necessity, and the second automatic control operation (see paras. 0096, changes target, see also paras. 0009-0012, 0014).
With regards to claim 5, the Grelaud patent further discloses wherein in the second automatic control operation, the controller (20) adjusts the positional relationship between the own vehicle (100) and the other motorcycle (300) that travels on a side of the own vehicle (100) (see col. 1:42-2:21).
For claim 6, the Grelaud publication teaches determining group riding (see para. 0022). Ohashi further discloses wherein the controller prohibits the own vehicle (100) from overtaking the other motorcycle (300) or traveling side by side with the other motorcycle (300) in the second speed control operation (see para. 0011) which is executed when the controller (20) determines the absence of the necessity (see para. 0092); the Grelaud patent further teaches allows the own vehicle (100) to overtake the other motorcycle (300) or travel side by side with the other motorcycle (300) in the second automatic control operation (see col. 1:42-2:21).
For claim 7, the Grelaud publication teaches wherein the controller makes the positional relationship between the own vehicle (100) and the other motorcycle (300) in an advancing direction, which is adjusted in the second automatic control operation, have an approaching tendency (see paras. 0012, 0021). Ohashi further teaches a distance when compared to the positional relationship between the own vehicle (100) and the other vehicle (300) in an advancing direction, which is adjusted in the second speed control operation executed when the controller (20) determines the absence of the necessity (see paras. 0114, 0099), while the Grelaud publication teaches a group ride determination (see paras. 0009-0012).
With regards to claim 8, Ohashi further teaches wherein in the controller changes the other motorcycle (300) as a target vehicle for adjustment of the positional relationship between the second speed control operation (see paras. 0009-0012, 0014), which is executed when the controller (20) determines the absence of the necessity, and the second automatic control operation (see paras. 0096, changes target, see also paras. 0009-0012, 0014).
Conclusion
Examiner previously stated at the end of the previous rejection that Applicant is considered to have implicit knowledge of the entire disclosure once a reference has been cited. The cited figures, columns and lines should not be considered the only relevant teachings. The entire reference must be taken as a whole. This includes any teachings within the reference that were not explicitly cited in the previous Office action. Any new citation of additional teachings of the previously cited art is not a new ground of rejection. Taking the references as a whole, the art supports the new rejection of the currently amended claims.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM D TISSOT whose telephone number is (571)270-3439. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Angela Ortiz can be reached at (571) 272-1206. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ADAM D TISSOT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights